159
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
159 points (80.7% liked)
Ask Lemmy
27027 readers
897 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Not really.
The lottery is paid for by those who all have an equal chance of winning that prize. Also, the profits from lotteries are usually spent on social funds etc.
I feel more conflicted about thr fact that it preys on addiction and those who buy the most lottery tickets are often those who can least afford them. I find that much more grotesque than a random person getting very lucky, but to each their own.
Half would go to the government no?
In the US, close to half of the winnings do go to the lottery, plus a portion of each lottery ticket usually goes to fund some government agency. Schools, programs for the impoverished and disenfranchised, etc.
The real question, in my opinion, is if you are willing to spend that much money on a ticket, why aren't you willing to spend that much money on just outright funding government programs? Imagine if 100% of what someone paid for a ticket went to programs for the disenfranchised? That could make real difference.
Probably worth noting that, at least in places like Texas, they take the funds from the lottery, allocate it to school, and then take the same amount of money out of schools to fund whatever bullshit they want.
And then in some places they decide to divert the school money for a new Raiders stadium.
I spend about $10 per year on lottery tickets. I pay upwards of $40k in taxes, much of which is funneled to "disenfranchised". I'm good, thanks.
Ok, but if you had a guarantee that your $10 would go directly to the disenfranchised with no chances of returning millions to you, how would that change things?
Handing money out to the "disenfranchised" solves nothing, thus it never ends. I am for real solutions, like education and a strong family unit. But, you know, having that opinion means I am racist/classist/whatever "ist".
Love the quote marks around disenfranchised. Real classy.
Let's see... cursory glance at post history indicates... Yep, right wing, anti union and against a living wage. That all tracks.
I think you are both arguing about an institution giving money to random people right? Just the amount of both money given and number of recipients are changing right?
Quote marks because "disenfranchised" is subjective. And wow, you have mad skills to look at someone's post history. Aren't you quite the haxxor?
I consider myself moderate. Lefty tools such as yourself label anyone that disagrees with them as right wing racist maga nazis. Fuck you.
I am anti union. Unions served a great purpose 100 years ago. Now they are corrupt shake down organizations that contribute to inflation and drive jobs out of the country. But if someone wants to join one, I don't care, it's none of my business. Just don't use my tax dollars to fund any of it.
Living wage. There is this idiotic entitlement mentality that people somehow deserve a "living wage" simply for consuming oxygen. Here is the truth: people are paid what they are worth. If you are providing real value to an employer, they will pay you enough to retain you. If they don't, find another employer. Rinse and repeat.
But nah, it's easier to blame shortcomings on billionaires/Trump/"the man"/"disenfranchisement" and hope some politician will send you money for your vote.
It seems to simply be a difference in values. I personally think a human being has value simply for existing, and many others would agree on this. Nothing idiotic about valuing different things.
We are in agreement, humans do have value. My point is that a living wage is possible, but it requires effort and sometimes tough decisions. Everyone should have the opportunity to better their lives, but I disagree that everyone is entitled to a 'living wage' simply for being alive. Have you not been to a restaurant where the service was terrible? Do those employees deserve a living wage?
No context needed, unequivocally, yes.
It seems that where we differ is they yes, I do think that employee providing shitty service deserves a living wage. But more importantly, there's so much that people do for us that should be paid but isn't, or that isn't paid enough to live off of but should be. People who volunteer their time to clean up public spaces, to help take care of the sick and elderly or young children, people producing art for the rest of us to enjoy, people doing doing fundamental research on topics that aren't currently trendy, and likely many more that aren't coming to mind right now.
Their choice to provide shitty service is also a choice to not have a "living wage".
Just cut to the point and say you hate poor people already.
He seems to prefer his dog whistle. Makes him seem 'moderate'
Nah, I hate dumbasses. Like you.
If it were a deliberate choice, then sure, I'd agree with you. The issue is that it often isn't, and you don't know how much choice someone has until you've lived their exact life.
Providing shitty service is always a choice.
What do you consider to be shitty service?
I've been a waiter and can tell you it's probably because the boss won't pay for enough people or is trying to cram too many people into their establishment without investing in the required infrastructure and staff.
Tell that to folks having to work three jobs to provide for their family. The concept of the minimum wage was to provide enough wages for people to support their families (on a single income no less) with a forty hour work week. Now, there isn't a single state where you can afford an average apartment on a minimum wage job. Saying 'youre paid what you're worth' is just a fancy way of saying some people don't deserve essentials in a post scarcity society.
But yeah, we can just let kids work to add a third income to the household. That'll solve it.
If only there were nearly 50 years of data proving your wage theory wrong. Productivity skyrocketed, and workers wages stagnated. Who got paid for all that value that was created? I guess all the people providing labor weren't providing real-enough value?
Unions provide the same benefits today as they did 100 years ago. They attempt to level the imbalance between the employer and workers. If there's a large imbalance then the workers don't have the leverage to negotiate better wages.
'murican with an IQ in the single digits doesn't understand what being leftwing means. More non-news at 11.
I'm detecting some guilt. Nobody here called you a Nazi, or anything other than right wing. Which you openly admit to. I mean, you claimed you were a moderate, but have taken up the right wing cause as your cross to bear. It's funny how you accuse everyone else of calling you a thing. Nobody but yourself said.
You're not the martyr you're pretending to be. You're just being an asshole to people with less power than you. Nobody's impressed by your tax bill, least of all me. And the fact that you make so much that you have to pay 40k in tax. And yet you still pretend that money would make any difference in your life means you're spending the money you have foolishly. Your petty greedy asshole. There, now somebody called you names.
U mad?
Maybe you are racist and/or classist.
Maybe you are an idiot.
Hey maybe.
Your opinion on who's an idiot has no credibility.
Maybe people like you deserve a broken nose. Who knows?
You realize that most studies show that direct cash payments to people on welfare/needy return better results, right?
This bullshit is so wrong on so many levels. It's laughable. I'm beginning to think you don't pay $40,000 in taxes, unless maybe it's from an inheritance though. Out of a trust fund every month. Nobody with actual life experience believes any of this bullshit.
You're the type of people we're talking about when we say "eat the rich", "bring the guillotine" or "burn them alive", it seems.
You make $200k a year, not bad!
What is better:
You pay 40k in taxes then you're going fine so stfu you have no right to complain about the less fortunate who need a social safety net.
The gall and sense of entitlement you assholes have is fucking astounding.
That depends on the government in question. For example, the Canadian government does not have a claim on any kind of lottery or game show winnings.
On the first year I believe.
To my understanding, and a quick Google search, winnings are never taxed.
Correct. And they’ll get your money for you if you win big in Vegas.
Lottery > Casinos for sure